[WikiEN-l] Defamation policy

[Keith Old]

On 8/19/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> ---- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> On 18/08/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So our "living persons" banner contains the following text:
> > "This article is about or directly concerns one or more living people
> > and therefore must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy.
> > Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about
> > living persons should not be posted to this article *or its talk
> > page(s)*. Such material must be removed without hesitation. "
> > (emphasis in original)
> > I'm particularly concerned about the "or its talk page" bit. Is
> > someone just confused, or should we actually *not* move material from
> > the talk page like this:
> > I have removed the following text because it sounds defamatory and
> > probably isn't true: "John B Smith was busted twice for frequenting
> > prostitutes in the 1970s". Anyone have a source?
> > How can we realistically work with potentially defamatory statements -
> > eg, requesting sources for them - if we can't even repeat them on talk
> > pages?
>
>
> Who put that in, and what do they say?
>
> (A lot of stupid stuff in the living bio and verification policies -
> and in a lot of other policies - is because someone edit warred it in
> and no-one could be bothered arguing in a querulous fashion. And then
> it stays because it's POLICY rather than because it makes sense.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> David,
>
> The arbcom uses Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in their findings
> and sanctions quite a bit. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough
> for me.
>
> Take care
> Sydney aka FloNight
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Folks,

Personally, I think it would be jawdroppingly stupid (to use those terms)
to  remove a potentially libellous accusation from the article and put it on
the talk page where people could still see it

If you put a message on the talk page to say that the article previously
contained unsourced or poorly sourced negative comments about the person
contrary to our policies and asking for such claims to have strong sources
if they are made, most people would have enough brains to realise that that
included claims about consorting with prostitutes.

It is much better to be safe than sorry in such instances.

Regards

Keith Old